St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-11-16
MIR. SPARKS TO QUIT.
The Com missioner Of the
General Land Office Writes
a Letter,
In Which He Formally Ten
ders His Resignation to
President Cleveland,
And Gives His Reasons for
Laying Dow n His Pub
lie Burden.
Gen. Sheridan's Report Re-
garding the Condition of
the Army--Notes.

WASHINGTON. Nov. 15.-Land Com
missioner Sparks this afternoon person.
allv delivered to the president the fol-
lowing letter, defending his course in
the Chicago, ST. Paul, Minneapolis &
Omaha railway land grant case, and
formally reSigning his office:
department of the Interior, General
Land Office, Washington. DC, Nov. ID.
To the President: The honorable sec
retary of the interior advises me by let
ter, dated the nth INST, in effect that he
should on that date present to you the
alternative of Selectinga a new secretary
of the interior or a new commissioner
of the general land office, in view of
which / have felt called upon to ad
dress you this letter. Under the au-
th0rity vested in the commissioner by
the laws. and in accordance with tradi-
tiOns and practices pursuant To law by
which action is first taken in the gen
eral land office in all matters relating
to public lands, | had, previous to Sep
tember. 1887. made adjustments of
certain railroad land grants. two of
which. known as the Omaha cases,
had been specially directed by the see
rotary to report. On Oct. z, 1887, two
decisions of the secretary were rendered
in the Omaha eases, nOncOncurring in
my adjustments and Overruling the au-
thOrity on which they We're based. He
directed me at the same time to cause
the grants to be adjusted in conformity
with said decisions. | now infer from
his published letter that these decisions
were not approved by the official law
adviser for the department of the inte-
rior. The point at issue related TO the
claim of railroad companies to indem-
nifty for lands that under railroad grant
ing acts ware reserved from the opera
ton of these acts by express terms of
the statutes. Previous to 1919, lands
that had been reserved by the govern
government for Indian and other puT-
poses and which
EXCLUDED FROM TIE GRANTS
and from the operation of the granting
acts. had been patented or certified to
the companies, both as granted lands
and as indemnity, pTOmiScuOuSly with
Olher lands. This seems to have been
done in pursuance OF Il practice Of Civ
ing railroad companies whatever they
asked for, apparently without much
consideration of the restrictions and
limitations of the grant. In that year
the title to a large quantity of such
lands in the state of Kansas which had
been so enormously vested in the
LeavenWOrth. Lawrence IL Galveston
Railroad company was decreed invalid
by the United States supreme court.
Since that date. or for the past twelve
wears. lands that were reserved at date
of grant, or at date Of the definite loca-
ton of the roads. as the case may be.
have been regarded and treated in the
decisions and practice of this Office and
department as excluded not only from all
the grants, but from the indemnity
basis under all grants wherein such re-
served lands are by the terms of the
law excluded from the operation of the
acts" The secretary held in the Omaha
cases that the company was entitled to
indemnity for such lands. This deciS-
ion. if adhered to. will have the effect to
take from the people many million acres
of land within railroad indemnity lin
its, which. by your advice and with
your approval, as expressed in the
GuilfOrd Miller case, have been pro
claimed to the country as restored to
the public domain. The question of
the correctness of these decisions be-
came. therefore, matter of moment
Gus concern. If they correctly declared
the law. these lands belong to the rail
road companies. If they did not cor
rectly declare the law, the lands
BELONG TO THE PEOPLE.
The Omaha decisions purpOrt to be
founded upon the decision of the su-
premP court in the case of the WinOna
Il st. Peter Railroad company VS.. Bar
ney. u13 L. s.. 61S). the assertion being
made that the ''plain language" of the
court in that case seems to be ''cOnclu-
Sive of the questions presented" and
also upon a certain rule of statutory i'll
depreciation relied upon as being an
axiom of construction. Said decisions
were further referred by reference to an
umreported decision of the United
States circuit court for Wisconsin,,
which was said in the Omaha cases to
be a judicial construction, which seems
to leave mo further room for discus
SiOn.1 1t appeared to me that the de-
cisiOn of the supreme court in the Bar
ney case was absolutely silent upon the
question decided in the Omaha cases.
and that not even the Obiter of
the court sustained these decisions.
1t also appeared to me that
the question at issue was not
i'll the case decided by the circuit court
for Wisconsin, and it seemed that the
rule of statutory Interpretation adopted
in the Omaha cases was the opposite of
the rule of construction adopted by the
courts and laid down by law writer's.
was therefore profoundly convinced
that the secretary had been committed
to errors of law which, if brought fully
to his personal attention, might be cor
Tected. 1t is the practice of the depart
ment TO permit representatives of rail
road companies and other private inter-
ests TO apply for reviews and recon-
sideratiOnS Of decisions when questions
are decided against such interests. |
believe that. as the officer of the govern
ment having immediate guardianship OF
the public lands, and the immediate
charge of the issuance of patents under
all grants OF land by congress, had at
least equal right with representatives
of private interests to ask the secretary
of the interior to re-eXamine depart
ment decision. And | believed it
ESPECIALLY PROPER
20 express my views to the secretary in
these cases because l had not, but
would have done SO, in the original in
stance, if | had anticipated change of
ruling and decision upon the point in
question. Accordingly | waited upon
the secretary and personally expressed
to him my desire to have review of the
decisions in these eases. He suggested
30 me to let the matter rest for the pres
ent, in which suggestion l, of course,
cheerfully acquiesced. The formal APP
plicatiOn for review, cOuched in IN, Il r,,-
Spectful terms, was completed s-..t
Oct. IS, but was not put upon ti3-' 8.
cial records and was not made 81. =,
q On Nov. 10 received a note froln -
wsecretary desiring me TO present to lin:
what ! had to say upon this subject.
My letter was accordingly signed and